View Full Version : Queiroz new #1
JQ2006
15 Dec 2006, 04:08 PM
on BBC.com football and transfer rumors section as per the SUN it says that Carlos Queiroz is now the #1 target for Sunil to land.
Nutmeg
15 Dec 2006, 04:12 PM
on BBC.com football and transfer rumors section as per the SUN it says that Carlos Queiroz is now the #1 target for Sunil to land.
Project 2010: The author becomes the would-be executioner.
danny_mac3
15 Dec 2006, 04:18 PM
if you guys thought arena was too defensive in his tactics, you ain't seen nothing yet if this goes through.
dncm
15 Dec 2006, 04:19 PM
Project 2010: The author becomes the would-be executioner.
And ends up beheading himself.
FC Uptown
15 Dec 2006, 04:23 PM
if you guys thought arena was too defensive in his tactics, you ain't seen nothing yet if this goes through.
I've heard this. Also heard strikers get frustrated with the tactics.
danny_mac3
15 Dec 2006, 04:27 PM
I've heard this. Also heard strikers get frustrated with the tactics.
And Roy Keane too, who supposedly denigrated Queiroz's tactics in the infamous interview on MUTV.
But that aside, I just remember my stepfather suffering over his tactics while he was the manager at Real. Oh those nights of a grown man screaming at a television. . . .those were the days.
Hey, Bora was pretty defensive minded as well and he did ok with our boys, and with alot of other nations too. "defensive" does not necessarily mean "bad".
the Next Level
15 Dec 2006, 04:35 PM
Hey, Bora was pretty defensive minded as well and he did ok with our boys, and with alot of other nations too. "defensive" does not necessarily mean "bad".
yes it does.
MightyMouse
15 Dec 2006, 04:37 PM
Italy (cough) Defensive (cough) Won The World Cup (cough)
Pete Bond
15 Dec 2006, 04:40 PM
I'm not aware of Queiroz's tactics at Real, the Metros, or when he coached the Portugese Youth National teams, but it appears that he is presently the primary trainer of a team that is relentless in its committment to attack.
If the US Youth guys had reason to feel threatened by Klinsman, what's going to happen if if Queiroz starts to implement some of the elements of the "Q" Report which clearly will affect their power base, and I suspect their pocketbooks?
hmm....
pwip
15 Dec 2006, 04:44 PM
Greece, Italy
They are not built to entertain, just win tournaments.
defense, mantra of all championship team in any sport.
tab5g
15 Dec 2006, 04:45 PM
I'll be so pissed in 8 months when Gulati can't get his #1 choice, Queiroz, and he has to settle for Jurgen Klinsmann.
USSF can't do anything right.
Shibb
15 Dec 2006, 04:46 PM
Well, you have to figure that Quireroz's stock rises by virtue of his attainability, if nothing else. Pekerman, Hiddink and Houllier are all attainable, perhaps, but by no means are they locks. It'd be hard to see Queiroz turning down this gig vs working as an MUFC assistant. I'm not sure Sunil can afford another failure to get his man.
That said, I'd rather have see what Bradley can do with our young guys.
MarioKempes
15 Dec 2006, 04:50 PM
Hey, Bora was pretty defensive minded as well and he did ok with our boys, and with alot of other nations too. "defensive" does not necessarily mean "bad".
We are no longer interested in coaches that do "ok".
tab5g
15 Dec 2006, 04:53 PM
We are no longer interested in coaches that do "ok".
i agree.
and i'd also like to contend that Bora did more than just "ok" with the squad.
who knows what Queiroz would do. i think he'd be an "ok" selection, but i have a hard time believing he's really the new #1 target of the USSF.
zeusbrowne
15 Dec 2006, 05:00 PM
The issue issue with a defense-oriented coach is that we have, relatively speaking, plenty of defensive talent. We don't need someone to teach us that. We need someone who can teach us to turn defensive work into offense, maintain posession effectively, and create offense through something other than longballs and counterattacking.
I still don't see where the US is going to learn how to creatively break down strong defenses at a level where offense has to come from creativity rather than simply capitalizing on your opponent's mistakes. That was the whole fundamental allure of JK, he was supposed to be able to teach us that.
Eliezar
15 Dec 2006, 05:00 PM
The difference between the second round and the QF for the US in 1994 was nothing more than near post Tony. Otherwise we play Mexico in the round of 16 and we would have advanced. 99% sure Romania went on to play Mexico anyway.
Bora was very unlucky in the world cup with the US. Having said that I would hope we get a coach much better than Bora.
Eliezar
15 Dec 2006, 05:03 PM
The issue issue with a defense-oriented coach is that we have, relatively speaking, plenty of defensive talent. We don't need someone to teach us that. We need someone who can teach us to turn defensive work into offense, maintain posession effectively, and create offense through something other than longballs and counterattacking.
I still don't see where the US is going to learn how to creatively break down strong defenses at a level where offense has to come from creativity rather than simply capitalizing on your opponent's mistakes. That was the whole fundamental allure of JK, he was supposed to be able to teach us that.
The first two goals we gave up to the Czechs were plain defensive lapses. The first goal we gave up to Ghana was a mental meltdown in the defensive third and the second goal in that game was a second mental meltdown in the defensive third by Bocanegra. The US definitely could use some improvement on the defensive side.
alffy
15 Dec 2006, 05:16 PM
The issue issue with a defense-oriented coach is that we have, relatively speaking, plenty of defensive talent. We don't need someone to teach us that. We need someone who can teach us to turn defensive work into offense, maintain posession effectively, and create offense through something other than longballs and counterattacking.
I still don't see where the US is going to learn how to creatively break down strong defenses at a level where offense has to come from creativity rather than simply capitalizing on your opponent's mistakes. That was the whole fundamental allure of JK, he was supposed to be able to teach us that.
I kinda like the idea of a really good defensive coach for the nats...
I really good defensive coach could take our defesive stengths and raise them to the next level. Why not play to the team's strengths rather than to manufacture new tactics using inferior materials?
Maybe a Queiroz might make our team one of the most solid, defensively, in the world. And great defensive coaches realize games are not won 0-0, so you need to develop excellent counterattack capabilities to get that 1 goal. And I think we have the necessary pieces for just such tactics.
Honestly, I think this might be a good fit for us, although our games might be real snoozers.
Having said that, I was really interested in JK for the reasons you pointed out- I wanted to see what he could have done. But, overall, considering our talent pool and strengths, maybe this would be a more productive match?
tab5g
15 Dec 2006, 05:19 PM
The first two goals we gave up to the Czechs were plain defensive lapses. The first goal we gave up to Ghana was a mental meltdown in the defensive third and the second goal in that game was a second mental meltdown in the defensive third by Bocanegra. The US definitely could use some improvement on the defensive side.
i agree with all of the points.
a key issue on the Czechs first goal is that Eddie Lewis (a midfielder set out as a left back) got caught upfield.
the US does have room to grow and learn in all parts of the field, even in defense. but i'm not sure that Queiroz is the best choice to lead the team, if that's what USSF is really aiming for now.